Say NO to Ballistic Missile Defence An Educational Resource An Educational Resource for Concerned Canadians for Concerned Canadians Researched & Prepared.

Say NO to Ballistic Missile Defence

An Educational An Educational ResourceResource

for Concerned for Concerned CanadiansCanadians

Researched & Prepared Researched & Prepared

by Janet M Eaton, PhD, by Janet M Eaton, PhD,

[email protected]@ns.sympatico.caa


Outline Outline

1.1. What is missile defence ? What is missile defence ?

2.2. What is the Canadian Government What is the Canadian Government position?position?

3.3. Why say NO !! Why say NO !!

4.4. What are some alternatives? What are some alternatives?

5.5. Why get involved? and how ! Why get involved? and how !


Nuclear Age Peace Foundation http://www.wagingpeace.org/.

1) Missile Defence – Historical Context1) Missile Defence – Historical Context

• The fifty-year history of America's multi-billion dollar missile defense obsession began after World War II, and intensified after the Soviets developed Sputnik and missiles. Beginning with Eisenhower's 1958 commitment to missile defense against the Soviet Union, through President Reagan's obsession with Star Wars, to President Clinton’s National Missile Defense to George W. Bush's 2002 decision to go it alone with his announcement of the imminent deployment of Ballistic Missile defence - the United States has had an almost religious, political and ideological obsession with Star Wars.

_________________________________________Reference: Star Wars Dreams

http://www.filmakers.com/indivs/StarWarsDreams.htm

Missile Defence – A ChronologyMissile Defence – A Chronology 1943 - Pearl Harbour - America’s first defining assault

1940s - The dawn of the Nuclear Age brings new fears of the threat of nuclear penetration. US begins testing missiles for use against possible attack by Soviet bombers. Ballistic missile defence low priority

1949 - Soviet Union gets the bomb and missile defense intensifies

and nuclear standoff between superpowers defines rest of century

1957 - Sputnik launch fuels US fears of missile attack from space; and for first time a missile shield declared a national priority.

1958 - President Eisenhower announces missile defence undergoing intense R&D with Department of Defence

1960 - US first attempt to build Missile Defence – The Nike Zeus

Missile Defence – A ChronologyMissile Defence – A Chronology 1968 - Nixon refocuses US missile defence deployment so system

would protect US deterrent forces and renamed it “Safeguard” - problematic because its missiles had to carry nuclear warheads

1969 - first round of Strategic Arms Limitations Talks (SALT)

1971 - SALT talks lead to Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty limiting Russia and US to 2 missile defence sites with limit of 100 interceptors

1976 - early 80’s – principle objective of the Army’s Missile Defence Program was to develop interceptors without nuclear warheads

1984 - Army demonstrated non-nuclear defensive missile which destroyed by physically colliding.

Missile Defence – A ChronologyMissile Defence – A Chronology 1983 - Reagan’s Strategic Defence Initiative alias “Star Wars”

1991 – George Bush Sr. space based “Brilliant Pebbles” interceptors added to plan/ goal scaled back to defend vs 200 or so warheads

1993- Clinton’s National Missile Defence ( NMD) System scaled back to protect vs 5 to 20 ‘simple’ warheads from hostile developing country that might acquire capacity in future

2000- Clinton pulls out citing technical problems, test failures, vulnerability to countermeasures.

2002 - George Bush Jr.announces limited version of missile defence referred to as Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD)

______________________________________________* Ballistic Missile Defence : A Brief History by Donald Baucom, MDA Historia

Missile Defence Agency http://www. Acq.osd.mil/bmdolink/html/briefhis.html

* Star Wars Dreams Film by Leslie Woodhead. Filmakers Library. Phone 212-808-4980

e-mail: [email protected]

Twenty Years of "Star Wars:" Big Budgets But Little Progress . Union of Concerned Scientists

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/missile_defense/page.cfm?pageID=1140

1. 1. Missile Defence - By any Other Name !Missile Defence - By any Other Name !

• Missile Defence ( MD )Missile Defence ( MD )

• Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI) / Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI) / Star WarsStar Wars

• National Missile Defence ( NMD )National Missile Defence ( NMD )

• Ballistic Missile Defence ( BMD )Ballistic Missile Defence ( BMD )

Missile Defence – What is it?Missile Defence – What is it? • MDMD Missile DefenceMissile Defence – generic term for a uniquely – generic term for a uniquely American stance to defending against the threat of nuclear American stance to defending against the threat of nuclear penetration of its airspace by ballistic missiles - a preferred penetration of its airspace by ballistic missiles - a preferred national defence strategy that began in the Post War Nuclear national defence strategy that began in the Post War Nuclear Era. Era.

““The real issue is how you fundamentally think America’s The real issue is how you fundamentally think America’s national security can be preserved. Can it be preserved national security can be preserved. Can it be preserved through treaties that reduce and prevent the threat or are through treaties that reduce and prevent the threat or are these treaties an illusion of security or is the only true these treaties an illusion of security or is the only true defence to rely on America's military might, its own defence to rely on America's military might, its own technology and in this case a missile defence system that technology and in this case a missile defence system that could shoot down whatever anyone else in the world throws could shoot down whatever anyone else in the world throws at us- that’s always been the debate.” -- Joe Circincione, at us- that’s always been the debate.” -- Joe Circincione, Carnegie Peace FoundationCarnegie Peace Foundation

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Joe Circincione as quoted in Star War Dreams. 2003. See References Joe Circincione as quoted in Star War Dreams. 2003. See References

Missile Defence - By any Other Name !Missile Defence - By any Other Name !• Star WarsStar Wars -

The original goal, laid out in Reagan's March 23 speech, is to render nuclear weapons "impotent and obsolete" and to protect the US population from a large-scale attack by thousands of Soviet nuclear warheads. Proponents foresaw space-based battlestations, as well as an extensive ground-based system,leading to the "Star Wars" name [1]

Senator Edward Kennedy first attached the ‘Star Wars’ label to Reagan’s vision of missile defense in comments made in the Senate the day after his speech. The Star Wars designation was so evocative that it was embraced by some of Reagan’s supporters , and henceforth the program which began as the ‘Strategic Defense Imitative ‘ became known as ‘Star Wars”. [2]

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________1 Twenty Years of "Star Wars:" Big Budgets But Little Progress . Union of Concerned Scientists

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/missile_defense/page.cfm?pageID=1140

2 Star Wars: Influence of motion picture on Reagan’s SDI History Today, March 1999 by Peter Kramer 2 Star Wars: Influence of motion picture on Reagan’s SDI History Today, March 1999 by Peter Kramer http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls.ml1373/3_49/54175536/p2/article

Missile Defence - By any Other Name !Missile Defence - By any Other Name !• Star WarsStar Wars -

““Ever since scientists designed missiles capable of delivering Ever since scientists designed missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons through space, the next imperative became nuclear weapons through space, the next imperative became an anti-missile system. Ronald Reagan’s version became an anti-missile system. Ronald Reagan’s version became known as Star Wars.. And many people, myself included, known as Star Wars.. And many people, myself included, now use the term ‘Star Wars’ for all comprehensive missile now use the term ‘Star Wars’ for all comprehensive missile defense plans, despite each successive administration's defense plans, despite each successive administration's renaming efforts.”renaming efforts.”

-- -- Dr.Helen Caldicott. 2002. -- -- Dr.Helen Caldicott. 2002. The New Nuclear Danger –George W The New Nuclear Danger –George W Bush’s Military –Industrial Complex. Bush’s Military –Industrial Complex. New York: The New PressNew York: The New Press

Missile Defence - By any Other Name !Missile Defence - By any Other Name ! NMDNMD--National Missile Defence National Missile Defence

• Under former President Clinton, the US government sought a Under former President Clinton, the US government sought a defensive shield for the continental United States – National defensive shield for the continental United States – National Missile Defence (NMD). [1]Missile Defence (NMD). [1]

• National Missile Defense System– Term now Obsolete - A National Missile Defense System– Term now Obsolete - A ground based anti-ballistic missile system designed to protect ground based anti-ballistic missile system designed to protect the US vs limited ballistic missile threats. Four elements –the US vs limited ballistic missile threats. Four elements –ground –based interceptors ; a ground –based radar ; a battle ground –based interceptors ; a ground –based radar ; a battle management command, control, communications, system; a management command, control, communications, system; a constellation of Space & Missile Tracking System. [2]constellation of Space & Missile Tracking System. [2]

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________[1] Canadian Peace Alliance. [1] Canadian Peace Alliance. http://www.acp-cpa.ca/NMDFAQ.htm

[2] [2] Missile Defense Agency Glossary http://www.acq.osd.mil/bmdo/bmdolink/pdf/glossary.pdf

kk

Missile Defence - By any Other Name !Missile Defence - By any Other Name !

BMD –Ballistic Missile DefenceBMD –Ballistic Missile Defence

The latest U.S. scheme to detect, intercept and destroy The latest U.S. scheme to detect, intercept and destroy enemy missiles plans to operate from land, sea, and space enemy missiles plans to operate from land, sea, and space platforms. platforms. This plan is designed to give the U.S. worldwide This plan is designed to give the U.S. worldwide reach before the decade is over, making the system much reach before the decade is over, making the system much more than ‘national’ defence; instead it is part of the U.S. more than ‘national’ defence; instead it is part of the U.S. policy for total domination of space described in the U.S. policy for total domination of space described in the U.S. Space Command’s document Space Command’s document Vision 2020.Vision 2020. [1] [1]

• BMD refers to all active and passive measures designed to BMD refers to all active and passive measures designed to detect, identify, track and defeat attacking ballistic missiles, in detect, identify, track and defeat attacking ballistic missiles, in both strategic and theater tactical roles, during any portion of both strategic and theater tactical roles, during any portion of their flight trajectory or to nullify or reduce the effectiveness their flight trajectory or to nullify or reduce the effectiveness of such attack. [2] of such attack. [2]

• BMD has also been referred to as “Son of Star Wars” [3] BMD has also been referred to as “Son of Star Wars” [3] ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________[1] Voice of Women Nova Scotia BMD Brochure [1] Voice of Women Nova Scotia BMD Brochure http:www.nsvow.chebucto.org http:www.nsvow.chebucto.org [2] [2] Missile Defense Agency Glossary http://www.acq.osd.mil/bmdo/bmdolink/pdf/glossary.pdf[3] Reference: BBC News http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/696028.stmhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/696028.stm

Missile Defence - By any Other Name !Missile Defence - By any Other Name !

BMD –Ballistic Missile DefenceBMD –Ballistic Missile Defence

• In December 2002, President Bush announced that the U.S. In December 2002, President Bush announced that the U.S. would deploy a missile defence system by the fall of 2004would deploy a missile defence system by the fall of 2004. . President Bush dropped the "national" and now speaks of a President Bush dropped the "national" and now speaks of a shield that would protect key US allies in an attempt to secure shield that would protect key US allies in an attempt to secure the support of other members of North Atlantic Treaty the support of other members of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). [1] Organization (NATO). [1]

• Despite talk about BMD being a means to build a continental shield around northern America, its deployment will not be limited to America. BMD is in fact being designed as global system and its impact may be felt most acutely in East Asia. One of BMD’s best kept secrets is that Japan’s conservative Liberal Democratic Party has supported BMD since 1999. [2]

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________[1] Canadian Peace Alliance - http://www.acp-cpa.ca/NMDFAQ.htm[2] Korea : The Next Iraq by Mary-Anne Ashford, John Price, Sung Suh http://www.flora.org/mai/forum/47044

Missile Defence – How it works !Missile Defence – How it works !

!•

Reference: BBC News http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/696028.stmhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/696028.stm

2) Position of Canadian Government?2) Position of Canadian Government?

• 1994 Defence White Paper initiated regular consultations on BMD between Canada & US & allies both bilaterally and through NATO.

• 2000 Canada & US established a BMD Bilateral Information Sharing Working Group that has met twice a year since

• December 17, 2002 George W Bush announced US would deploy initial BMD system for defence of North America by year 2004.

• May 29, 2003 Canada announced entry into discussions with US on possible participation in missile defence of North America.

• January 15, 2004 the Cdn Minister of National Defence & US Secretary of Defense exchanged non-binding Letters of Intent, stating the interest of both nations in negotiating an agreement on cooperation in the ballistic missile defence of North America.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Canada and Ballistic Missile Defence. Discussions with the United States onCanada and Ballistic Missile Defence. Discussions with the United States on

possible Canadian participation in the Ballistic Missile Defence of North possible Canadian participation in the Ballistic Missile Defence of North America. America.

http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/department/focus/bmd-en.asphttp://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/department/focus/bmd-en.asp

What is the Position of the Cdn Govt?What is the Position of the Cdn Govt?

• The primary aim of these discussions has been to establish whether or not participation in BMD could enhance Canadian security [1]• The Government is committed to ensuring and enhancing the security of Canada and Canadians. Examining possible Canadian participation in the Ballistic Missile Defence of North America is one aspect of meeting this commitment.[1]• The Prime Minister has stated categorically that Canada is opposed to the weaponization of space [2] • When the discussions have concluded, the Government will assess if Canadian interests have been met and will take a decision on Canadian participation in BMD. Due to the complexities of the issues at stake, these talks are expected to take a number of months.[3] _____________________________________________________________[1] News Release: Canada-U.S. Exchange Letters On Missile Defence NR–04.001 - January 15, 2004 http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1289

[2] CBC The National Town Hall Meeting Conference Centre Ottawa

[3] Ibid http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/department/focus/bmd-en.asphttp://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/department/focus/bmd-en.asp


• Any decision by the Government on Canada's role in BMD would be determined only after a comprehensive review of possible implications. …. Canadian involvement would have to be cost-effective, make an unambiguous contribution to Canadian defence requirements and build upon missions already performed by the Canadian Forces, such as surveillance and communications …. would be predicated on the proposed system being compliant with the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, or an updated treaty negotiated with Russia, as well as other arms control and disarmament agreements, protocols and arrangements. – Canada Department of Defence, October 2003_____________________________________________________________Canada's Policy on Ballistic Missile Defence. Canada Department of National Defence ; issued Oct.5http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-in/client/modele.pl?session=dae.3070478.1076275195&prod=830&modele=jdc_1


• It is our intent to negotiate in the coming months a Missile Defence Framework Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the United States with the objective of including Canada as a participant in the current US missile defence program and expanding and enhancing information exchange. We believe this should provide a mutually beneficial framework to ensure the closest possible involvement and insight for Canada, both government and industry, in the US missile defence program. Such an MOU could also help pave the way for increased government-to-government and industry-to-industry co-operation on missile defence that we should seek to foster between our countries. -- Minister Pratt to Secretary Rumsfeld, January 15, 2004

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________•Letters Exchanged on Missile Defence - Letter from Minister Pratt to Secretary Rumsfeld, 01-15-2004http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Focus/Canada-us/letter_e.asp


• The technical extent of protection afforded by the US ballistic missile defence system will evolve over time, and our bilateral co-operation in this area should also evolve. We should continue to explore appropriate technical, political and financial arrangements related to the potential defence of Canada and the United States against missile attack, within the framework of our laws. Our staffs should discuss ways in which Canada could contribute to this effort. -- Minister Pratt to Secretary Rumsfeld, January 15, 2004

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Letters Exchanged on Missile Defence - Letter from Minister Pratt to Secretary Rumsfeld, 01-15-2004http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Focus/Canada-us/letter_e.asp


• Ernie Regehr, Executive Director and analyst with Project Ploughshares, suggests that two key principles perhaps most incline Ottawa toward support for BMD:i) ‘the responsibility to protect’ i.e if there is a serious claim i) ‘the responsibility to protect’ i.e if there is a serious claim that it is possible to provide Canadians protection against that it is possible to provide Canadians protection against nuclear attack, responsibility requires we have a look at it.nuclear attack, responsibility requires we have a look at it.

ii) Second is Mackenzie King’s WWII undertaking to Roosevelt ii) Second is Mackenzie King’s WWII undertaking to Roosevelt that Canada would take measures necessary to give credible that Canada would take measures necessary to give credible assurances to our American neighbours that threats to their assurances to our American neighbours that threats to their security would not emerge from Canadian territory.security would not emerge from Canadian territory.

Others include :Others include :• industrial benefits industrial benefits • access to intelligence and technologyaccess to intelligence and technology• seeking favour with the US in order to aid the pursuit of other seeking favour with the US in order to aid the pursuit of other interests in the bilateral relationship interests in the bilateral relationship _____________________________________________________________-_____________________________________________________________-

Ernie Regehr. BMD –Pragmatic Issues which Canada must Address. August 26-27 Ernie Regehr. BMD –Pragmatic Issues which Canada must Address. August 26-27 20032003

3. 3. Why Say NO to BMD ?Why Say NO to BMD ?

• Technological & Scientific reasons Technological & Scientific reasons • Economic reasons Economic reasons • Political reasons Political reasons • Environmental reasons Environmental reasons

Why Say NO to BMD ?Why Say NO to BMD ? 1. Technologically Unproven/Scientifically Uncertain1. Technologically Unproven/Scientifically Uncertain

“One year ago the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade advised the Government not to make any decision on BMD because ‘the technology has not been proven and details of deployment are not known . Events since then reinforce this advice.During 2003 four US General Accounting Office Investigations confirmed that none of 10 essential technologies has been tested in operational conditions and 8 of 10 have not even reached the product stage of development. The X-band radar designed to track incoming warheads and distinguish them from decoys , the interceptor rockets, the command and control communications links, and the kinetic kill vehicle to name just a few , essential components , all await proven technologies.” -- Ernie Regehr, Director Project Ploughshares

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ - Ernie Regehr, Project Plowshares, letter to Paul Martin, Jan 2, 2004

Why Say NO to BMD ?Why Say NO to BMD ? Technologically Unproven/Scientifically UncertainTechnologically Unproven/Scientifically Uncertain

“The kinds of test they are doing now are referred to in the testing community as ‘strapped down chicken tests’ . where you are setting up an easy to hit target and then blowing its head off and saying see I can do it but it has no relation to real world experience where the chicken is running, is hiding, and puts up decoy chickens and you can’t tell which is the chicken you’re really supposed to be hitting.” - Joe Ciccincione, Carnegie Peace Foundation

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Joe Ciccincione quoted in Star Wars Dreams film interview


“I think the problem is not solvable. Science says it can’t be proven – it’s not a matter of improving technology. The fact is they have no way of telling the difference between war head, simplest of decoys an enemy would deploy…. There is no science they can exploit and no technology they can exploit so all they do is make claims. It’s like saying – I’ll jump off this building and maybe I’ll find a way not to hit the concrete too hard. This is not the way you do your planning for your national security.” -- Theodore Postol, MIT Professor ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Theodore Postol quoted in Star Wars Dreams Film


For extensive documentation of Ted Postol’s writing:See Halifax Peace Coalition BMD Reader Webpage http://hfxpeace.chebucto.org/bmdreader.htmlWhat’s Wrong with Missile Defense -(Boston Review, Sept 2001

• Why National Missile Defense Won’t Work-Sci. American, Aug 1999

• Postol vs The Pentagon - Technology Review April 2002

• MIT Physicist Knocks Anti-Missile System SF Chronicle, March 3, 200

• Assembled News Articles on Cover-Up of Anti-Missile System Flaws from NYT/The Times/Boston Globe from July 2000- March 2003 ___________________________________________________________________________

http://hfxpeace.chebucto.org/bmdreader.html


The Pentagon has taken some steps toward more realistic testing The Pentagon has taken some steps toward more realistic testing of the antimissile system that it plans to deploy this year to of the antimissile system that it plans to deploy this year to protect the United States, but many aspects of the system remain protect the United States, but many aspects of the system remain to be tested, according to a congressional report.to be tested, according to a congressional report.

The report, prepared by the General Accounting Office, expressed The report, prepared by the General Accounting Office, expressed concern about a lack of test data showing whether the system concern about a lack of test data showing whether the system can work using all its final parts instead of prototypes, and can work using all its final parts instead of prototypes, and whether it can adequately identify warheads in a field of decoys. whether it can adequately identify warheads in a field of decoys. Also still to be demonstrated, the report said, are such actions as Also still to be demonstrated, the report said, are such actions as multiple launches of interceptors, nighttime intercepts and multiple launches of interceptors, nighttime intercepts and operations under adverse weather conditions.operations under adverse weather conditions. - Bradley - Bradley Graham, Washington Post, March 11Graham, Washington Post, March 11

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________GAO Urges Better Tests of Missile Defense System By Bradley GrahamWashington Post , March 11, 2004; Page A08 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47993-2004Mar10.html

Why Say NO to BMD ?Why Say NO to BMD ?2 . Economically wasteful Economically wasteful

• For over 50 years America has poured more than For over 50 years America has poured more than $120 billion into the search for a defence against the $120 billion into the search for a defence against the threat of enemy missiles. Since 1983 alone the US threat of enemy missiles. Since 1983 alone the US has spent $100 billion on missile defence and still has spent $100 billion on missile defence and still has nothing that works [1]has nothing that works [1]

• The Congressional Budget Office puts the price tag The Congressional Budget Office puts the price tag at another $230 billion over next two decades [2]at another $230 billion over next two decades [2]

_______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ [1] Ernie Regehr. Canada and Ballistic Missile Defence. Ploughshares Monitor [1] Ernie Regehr. Canada and Ballistic Missile Defence. Ploughshares Monitor Summer 2003Summer 2003

http://www.ploughshares.ca/CONTENT/ABOLISH%20NUCS/BMD%20Page/http://www.ploughshares.ca/CONTENT/ABOLISH%20NUCS/BMD%20Page/BMD.update.htmBMD.update.htm

[2] Star Wars Dreams [ Ibid ][2] Star Wars Dreams [ Ibid ]

Why Say NO to BMD ?Why Say NO to BMD ? Economically wastefulEconomically wasteful

Speaking at the Speaking at the April 15April 15thth, 2000 , 2000 –– ““Keep Space for Peace Keep Space for Peace ConferenceConference”” on on tthe militarization of space and the rapid he militarization of space and the rapid movement toward the deployment by the US of a Ballistic movement toward the deployment by the US of a Ballistic Missile Defence system Missile Defence system – – Bill Hartung of the World Policy Bill Hartung of the World Policy Institute Institute said:said:

Billions of dollars of contracts will be given to Lockheed Billions of dollars of contracts will be given to Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, and TRW to construct the system Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, and TRW to construct the system which will provide no greater security to the US and will which will provide no greater security to the US and will jeopardize international peace and Russian relations. jeopardize international peace and Russian relations.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Notes on World Bank/IMF protests and BMD conferenceNotes on World Bank/IMF protests and BMD conference

http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/apnotes.htmhttp://www.converge.org.nz/pma/apnotes.htm

Why Say NO to BMD ?Why Say NO to BMD ?

Economically wastefulEconomically wasteful

“ “We’re spending millions of dollars per year We’re spending millions of dollars per year on this right now for a little bit of political and on this right now for a little bit of political and ideological symbolism. I don’t know an ideological symbolism. I don’t know an issues in public policy in this country over the issues in public policy in this country over the past 50 years surrounded by so much wishful past 50 years surrounded by so much wishful thinking, fiction and down right lyingthinking, fiction and down right lying.” .” - - Francis Francis

FitzgeraldFitzgerald,, Star Wars historian and authorStar Wars historian and author

__________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ Francis Fitzgerald, Star Wars historian and author quoted in the film ‘Star Wars Francis Fitzgerald, Star Wars historian and author quoted in the film ‘Star Wars Dreams”. Dreams”.

Why Say NO to BMD ?Why Say NO to BMD ? 3. Political Reasons

a. Fails to protect Canadians and promotes global a. Fails to protect Canadians and promotes global insecurityinsecurity

b. Contrary to Canadian Policy Values & Contrary to Canadian Policy Values & International Law International Law

c. Will lead to weaponization of space c. Will lead to weaponization of space

d. Jeopardizes Canada’s sovereignty d. Jeopardizes Canada’s sovereignty

e. Reflects corporate influence e. Reflects corporate influence

f. There is no imperatives to be at the tablef. There is no imperatives to be at the table

Why Say NO to BMD ?Why Say NO to BMD ?a. Fails to protect Canadians and promotes global a. Fails to protect Canadians and promotes global

insecurity insecurity

Project Ploughshares report Project Ploughshares report “Canada and “Canada and Ballistic Missile Defence” Ballistic Missile Defence” questions claims questions claims of the government that BMD will protect of the government that BMD will protect Canadians, and says that BMD will instead Canadians, and says that BMD will instead exacerbate proliferation pressures that have put exacerbate proliferation pressures that have put the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in jeopardy the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in jeopardy and the report challenges the importance being and the report challenges the importance being attached to BMD in the Canada- US Bilateral attached to BMD in the Canada- US Bilateral relationship. [1] relationship. [1]

__________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ [1] Project Ploughshares media release on their authoritative 58 page report [1] Project Ploughshares media release on their authoritative 58 page report

“Canada and Ballistic Missile Defence” “Canada and Ballistic Missile Defence” http://www.ploughshares.ca/CONTENT/ABOLISH%20NUCS/BMLiupressrelease.pdf


insecurity insecurity • Even after the ground based mid-course interceptor

system graduates from test-bed to an operational defence system, sometime in an uncertain future it will address only a tiny fraction (never more than 1%) of of nuclear warheads capable of hitting targets in North America with ballistic missiles.

• It will have no capacity against short range ballistic or cruise missiles that could be fired from ships off the North American coasts.

• The political prominence given the proposed system ignores the myriad of other ways in which weapons of mass destruction could be delivered to North American targets.

________________________________________________________[1] Project Ploughshares media release on their authoritative 58 page report [1] Project Ploughshares media release on their authoritative 58 page report



insecurity insecurity • BMD or Star Wars will not protect North Americans from BMD or Star Wars will not protect North Americans from

terrorism. Terrorists acts such as the attack on the World terrorism. Terrorists acts such as the attack on the World Trade towers, exposure to biological and chemical Trade towers, exposure to biological and chemical weapons, and dirty bombs hidden in container ships weapons, and dirty bombs hidden in container ships show that Cold war defence strategies don’t work. show that Cold war defence strategies don’t work. Adherence to US foreign policies threaten Canada.[1] .Adherence to US foreign policies threaten Canada.[1] .

• BMD will be a destabilizing force as countries such as BMD will be a destabilizing force as countries such as China seek to strengthen their missile and nuclear China seek to strengthen their missile and nuclear capability to overwhelm the system. Progress in non-capability to overwhelm the system. Progress in non-proliferation is achieved by multi-lateral diplomacy and proliferation is achieved by multi-lateral diplomacy and disarmament efforts , not unilateral actions by an over-disarmament efforts , not unilateral actions by an over-armed super-power. [2]armed super-power. [2]__________________________________________________________________________________________

[1] Canadian Peace Alliance Website [1] Canadian Peace Alliance Website http://www.acp-cpa.ca/CPAmainEnglish.htmhttp://www.acp-cpa.ca/CPAmainEnglish.htm

[2] [2] B.M.D. A destabilizing force while benefiting Canadian defence industryB.M.D. A destabilizing force while benefiting Canadian defence industry for immediate release Physicians for Global Survival. January 19, 2004 for immediate release Physicians for Global Survival. January 19, 2004 http://www.pgs.ca/http://www.pgs.ca/


insecurity insecurity

• BMD strategic impact is not likely to be as benign as BMD strategic impact is not likely to be as benign as

hoped when the ABM Treaty was abrogated. Russia and hoped when the ABM Treaty was abrogated. Russia and China are now actively preparing counter measures and China are now actively preparing counter measures and strategies. [1] strategies. [1] Jan 2, 2004 Jan 2, 2004

• Russia has successfully tested a hypersonic anti-Star Wars weapon capable of penetrating any prospective missile shield, a senior general said Thursday. The prototype weapon proved it could maneuver so quickly as to make "any missile defense useless," Col.-Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky, the first deputy chief of the General Staff of the Russian armed forces, told a news conference. [2] -- February 19th 2004

____________________________________________________________________[1] Ernie Regehr, Project Plowshares, letter to Paul Martin, Jan 2,

2004 [2] Russia: Star Wars useless against new weapon Thu, February 19, 2004 http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2004/02/19/353516-ap.html


insecurity insecurity Presidential Decision Directive 62, issued in 1998, says,

"America's unrivaled military superiority means that potential enemies (whether nations or terrorist groups) that choose to attack us will be more likely to resort to terror instead of conventional military assault.“

The Bush administration's response, involving a

tremendous new wave of militarism, new weapons systems, and a newly aggressive posture in the world could not have done more to exacerbate the threat of terrorist attacks if it had been planned that way.

Military means will not work. The beginning of a solution is the end of the twin occupations in the Middle East

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________ "War on Terrorism" Makes Us All Less Safe by Rahul Mahajan ( author of "Full Spectrum

Dominance: U.S. Power in Iraq and Beyond" ) in ZNET March 12, 2004

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=40&ItemID=5142


insecurity insecurity • The bombings in Madrid attributed to al Qaeda [1] are The bombings in Madrid attributed to al Qaeda [1] are

further indication that supporting the US led –approach further indication that supporting the US led –approach to terrorism created vulnerability for citizens of those to terrorism created vulnerability for citizens of those countries who chose to support the US.countries who chose to support the US.

• Opinion polls for the the Spanish election showed as many as 90 per cent of Spaniards opposed the war against Iraq and Spain's continuing role in military activities there. Angry Spanish voters, traumatized by Thursday's terrorist attacks in Madrid, threw out the governing party of Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar in the national election yesterday, dealing a new blow to the U.S.-led coalition occupying Iraq. [2]

______________________________________________________________[1] Canadian officials vigilant following Madrid attacks: Martin. CBC News 15 Mar 2004 8:08:44

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/03/14/canada/martin_security040314[2] ] Spaniards oust ruling party in wake of terrorist attacks Widespread belief of lying by government prompts

angry voters to turn to Socialists. Globe & Mail, Mar15

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040315/SPAINV15/TPInternational/TopStories

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Why Say NO to BMD ?Why Say NO to BMD ? b. Contrary to Canadian Policy Values & International Contrary to Canadian Policy Values & International

Law Law

"Participation in missile defence would entail a significant change in Canada's policy on the non-proliferation of missiles and weapons of mass destruction, by undermining Canada's long-promoted model of multilateral regulation and cooperation in favor of the counter- proliferation, confrontational model currently adopted by the United States, based on pre-emption, and the threat and use of high-tech,overwhelming military force." -- The Honourable Lloyd Axworthy, in his presentation to the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs http://www.nowis.org/

Why Say NO to BMD ?Why Say NO to BMD ?b. Contrary to Canadian Policy values and international b. Contrary to Canadian Policy values and international

lawlaw

Washington’sWashington’s offer is not an invitation to join in safe retreat offer is not an invitation to join in safe retreat under a protective BMD shield but an invitation to support under a protective BMD shield but an invitation to support and cheer America as it confronts a complex and dangerous and cheer America as it confronts a complex and dangerous global security environment on the basis of a global security environment on the basis of a global security global security doctrinedoctrine that that violates Canadian values and approaches on violates Canadian values and approaches on multiple levels:multiple levels:

1.Relying on pre-emption & military superiority over a rules 1.Relying on pre-emption & military superiority over a rules based international orderbased international order

2. Favoring counter-proliferation over nuclear non-2. Favoring counter-proliferation over nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament proliferation and disarmament

3. Insisting on the weaponization of space3. Insisting on the weaponization of space

4. Undermining Canada’s capacity for independent role in 4. Undermining Canada’s capacity for independent role in international peace and security efforts through multilateral international peace and security efforts through multilateral disarmamentdisarmament

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________[1] Ernie Regehr. Canada and Ballistic Missile Defence. Ploughshares Monitor [1] Ernie Regehr. Canada and Ballistic Missile Defence. Ploughshares Monitor

Summer 2003Summer 2003

Why Say NO to BMD ?Why Say NO to BMD ?b. Contrary to Canadian Policy values & International b. Contrary to Canadian Policy values & International

Law Law

In other words deeper military integration with In other words deeper military integration with US is contrary to Canada’s:US is contrary to Canada’s:

• Adherence to the rule of law guides our domestic and Adherence to the rule of law guides our domestic and international policy choices international policy choices

• Co-operation through the UN (Multilateralism) and the use of Co-operation through the UN (Multilateralism) and the use of “peaceful means” to settle international disputes (UN Article “peaceful means” to settle international disputes (UN Article 2.3)2.3)

• Reliance of Diplomacy and Not WarReliance of Diplomacy and Not War

• Promotion of Disarmament and Nuclear Non-Proliferation Promotion of Disarmament and Nuclear Non-Proliferation

• Opposition to the Weaponization of Space Opposition to the Weaponization of Space

Why Say NO to BMD ?Why Say NO to BMD ? b. Contrary to Canadian Policy Values & b. Contrary to Canadian Policy Values &

International Law International Law

The use of nuclear weapons is explicitly contemplated in the policies of the Bush Administration. These policies have been

promulgated in a number of statements, most of them made during the last

year. The following documents are of particular importance: • Nuclear Posture Review. January, 2002 • The National Security Strategy of the United States of

America. September, 2002 • National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction. December 2002 • National Policy on Ballistic Missile Defense. May 2003

___________________________________________________________________________

Sir Joseph Rotblat The Nuclear Issue: Pugwash & the Bush Policies [Halifax July 18, Pugwash

Conf] http://www.flora.org/mai/forum/43948

Why Say NO to BMD ?Why Say NO to BMD ?b. Contrary to Canada’s International Treaty b. Contrary to Canada’s International Treaty

Obligations Obligations

Deeper military integration with US could Deeper military integration with US could lead to violation of Canada’s international lead to violation of Canada’s international obligations:obligations:

• Outer Space Treaty 1967 (WMD)Outer Space Treaty 1967 (WMD)• Convention on International Liability for Damage Convention on International Liability for Damage

Caused by Space Objects 1972Caused by Space Objects 1972• Convention on Registration of Objects Launched Convention on Registration of Objects Launched

into Outer Space 1975into Outer Space 1975• Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons 19 Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons 19 • Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban 1996Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban 1996• Hague Code of Conduct Against Ballistic Missile Hague Code of Conduct Against Ballistic Missile

Proliferation 2002 (Voluntary agreement Proliferation 2002 (Voluntary agreement

Why Say NO to BMD ?Why Say NO to BMD ?b. Contrary to Canadian Values b. Contrary to Canadian Values

Deeper military integration with US goes vs Canadian Deeper military integration with US goes vs Canadian ValuesValues

• 74 % of Canadians support Canada's decision not to send troops to Iraq -up three points from the last poll on the subject, December 2003.

• 63 % of Canadians believe the United States made a mistake in going to war in Iraq a jump of 16 points since December.

• 67 % agree that U.S. President George Bush knowingly lied to the world in order to justify his war with Iraq.

• 61 % agree "true democracy will never come to the region," despite all the U.S. efforts. • 69 % agree that because of what has happened, the U.S.

"will learn a valuable lesson" that it is better for them to work

with countries around the world rather than to act on their own in issues of world crisis.

______________________________________________CTV/Globe & Mail Ipsos Reid Poll- March 15th

Why Say NO to BMD ?Why Say NO to BMD ?b. Contrary to Canadian Values & Global Attitudes b. Contrary to Canadian Values & Global Attitudes

towards US towards US

Deeper military integration with US goes vs Global Deeper military integration with US goes vs Global ValuesValues

A new survey of global attitudes, Pew Research Center

finds the world more in tune with José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, the new

leader of Spain, than with George W. Bush: Across Europe and in key

Muslim countries allied with the US, publics continue to hold negative

views of the US, its handling of its leadership position in the world, and the

war in Iraq.

The divide between the US and Europe is only getting wider," says

Carroll Doherty, editor of the Pew Research Center. "It's beyond a

question of America's image, it's now to the point where people want

action based on their opposition to the US."

______________________________________________The world's view of US. USA Foreign Policy from the March 17, 2004 edition

http://csmonitor.com/2004/0317/p04s01-usfp.html

Why Say NO to BMD ?Why Say NO to BMD ?b. Contrary Canadian Valuesb. Contrary Canadian Values

Paul Heinbecker, former Canadian Ambassador to the UN director of the Laurier Centre for Global Relations, Governance and Policy at Wilfrid Laurier University writing in the Globe and Mail, March 19th offered five lessons Canada should learn from the Iraq experience among them:

• First and foremost, that values matter in foreign policy....• Second, going along to get along has never made good

public policy, or good politics, either..... • And finally, we should not shrink from disagreeing with U.S.

administrations when they are wrong any more than we should shrink from agreeing with them when they are right. We should call them as we see them. We did so on Iraq, and we have been vindicated.

_______________________________________________________________Canada got it right on Iraq by Paul Heinbecker, Globe & Mail, March 19, 2004 http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040319/COHEIN19/TPComment/TopStories

---

Why Say NO to BMD ?Why Say NO to BMD ?c. Will lead to Weaponization of Space c. Will lead to Weaponization of Space

• The Canadian government continues to admonish critics for The Canadian government continues to admonish critics for calling missile defence Star Wars and insists that calling missile defence Star Wars and insists that weaponization of space will not be a part of ballistic missile weaponization of space will not be a part of ballistic missile defence for many years if at all. This position was tirelessly defence for many years if at all. This position was tirelessly adhered to in the all evening Parliamentary debate on BMD adhered to in the all evening Parliamentary debate on BMD held February 18held February 18..

• The Minister of Defence chided members opposing the plan The Minister of Defence chided members opposing the plan even when presented with well - researched knowledge even when presented with well - researched knowledge which evidenced that BMD is only a way station on the road which evidenced that BMD is only a way station on the road to weaponization of space. The Minister’s response, in to weaponization of space. The Minister’s response, in defending his government’s position and when challenged on defending his government’s position and when challenged on this discrepancy, was to deny it saying:this discrepancy, was to deny it saying:

"as far as we know... my guess is... who knows what the future holds".

___________________________________________________Parliamentary Debate on Ballistic Missile Defense, Feb 18, 2004 CHECK OUT URL IN KOREA ARTICLE

Why Say NO to BMD ?Why Say NO to BMD ?c. Will lead to Weaponization of Spacec. Will lead to Weaponization of Space

And yet: And yet:

“ “The U.S. plan to build a missile defence shield poses a The U.S. plan to build a missile defence shield poses a significant risk bysignificant risk by pavingpaving the the way for putting weapons into way for putting weapons into orbit, warns a Department of National Defenceorbit, warns a Department of National Defence report.report. Yet Yet llast year, Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham reassured ast year, Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham reassured Canadians thatCanadians that suggestions the U.S. planned to put suggestions the U.S. planned to put weapons into orbit wasweapons into orbit was pu purere speculation speculation … ….. But the But the defence study, obtained by the defence study, obtained by the [Ottawa] [Ottawa] Citizen under the Citizen under the Access toAccess to Information law, notes Information law, notes::

A significant risk associated with BMD from the non-A significant risk associated with BMD from the non-proliferation and disarmament perspective is its proliferation and disarmament perspective is its reinforcement of trends towards the weaponization of outer reinforcement of trends towards the weaponization of outer spacespace..““

__________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ Missile shield risks militarizing space: DND: Report says U.S. defence planMissile shield risks militarizing space: DND: Report says U.S. defence plan a step toward puttinga step toward putting

weapons in orbitweapons in orbit by by David Pugliese, David Pugliese, The Ottawa Citizen 9 Jan 20049 Jan 2004

http://www.polarisinstitute.org/polaris_project/corp_security_state/http://www.polarisinstitute.org/polaris_project/corp_security_state/Opinions_interviews/january_9_2004.htmOpinions_interviews/january_9_2004.htm

• Missile shield risks militarizing space: DND: Report says U.S. defence planMissile shield risks militarizing space: DND: Report says U.S. defence plana a step toward putting step toward putting weapons in orbitweapons in orbit by David Pugiese, by David Pugiese, The Ottawa Citizen 9 Jan 20049 Jan 2004 http://www.polarisinstitute.org/polaris_project/corp_security_state/Opinions_interviews/http://www.polarisinstitute.org/polaris_project/corp_security_state/Opinions_interviews/january_9_2004.htm january_9_2004.htm


And - The US Space Command, a joint air force, army, navy and marines operation, that ccoordinates existing military operations in space, states in its Vision for 2020 report that:

“The emerging synergy of space superiority with land, sea and air superiority, will lead to Full Spectrum Dominance.”

“The medium of space is the fourth medium of warfare.”

“ National missile defence will evolve into a mix of ground and space based sensors and weapons”

“ Development of ballistic missile defences using space systems and planning for precision strike from space offers a counter to worldwide proliferation of WMD.”

__________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ United States Space Command Vision for 2020 United States Space Command Vision for 2020

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usspac/visbook.pdfhttp://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usspac/visbook.pdf


And further budget monies have been allocated And further budget monies have been allocated for space based weapon research:for space based weapon research:

• President George W. Bush is planning to put the first President George W. Bush is planning to put the first weapons in space despite broad international opposition, weapons in space despite broad international opposition, budget papers sent to Congress on Monday showed. Bush's budget papers sent to Congress on Monday showed. Bush's spending plans for the fiscal year starting Oct. 1 include an spending plans for the fiscal year starting Oct. 1 include an unspecified sum for developing and testing "advanced, unspecified sum for developing and testing "advanced, lightweight, space-based (missile) interceptor components," lightweight, space-based (missile) interceptor components," the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency said. the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency said.

• In its budget overview, the agency said it was seeking $47 In its budget overview, the agency said it was seeking $47 million to start "technology development" of such weapons million to start "technology development" of such weapons and others that could be phased into a multi-layered U.S. and others that could be phased into a multi-layered U.S. missile shield starting in January 2012. In the two years missile shield starting in January 2012. In the two years thereafter, the Pentagon aims to base a handful of missile thereafter, the Pentagon aims to base a handful of missile interceptors in orbit for testing, the agency said. interceptors in orbit for testing, the agency said.

__________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ Bush Moves Toward 'Star Wars' Missile Defense by Jim Wolf Reuters February Bush Moves Toward 'Star Wars' Missile Defense by Jim Wolf Reuters February

2, 20042, 2004

http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/2004/0202missdefense.htmhttp://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/2004/0202missdefense.htm

Why Say NO to BMD ?Why Say NO to BMD ?d. Jeopardizes Canada’s Sovereignty Canada’s Sovereignty

• The recently formed Canadian Coalition to Oppose Ballistic Missile Defence, a grass-roots campaign network with links across the country, criticizes the American-sponsored system as being technologically unsound, expensive, unnecessary and a betrayal of Canada’s commitment to work towards a ban of weapons in space.

The coalition warns that the outcome of this debate may determine whether Canada can maintain a semblance of an independent foreign policy. [1]

• Joining Washington’s missile defence would undermine Joining Washington’s missile defence would undermine Canada’s capacity for an independent role in international Canada’s capacity for an independent role in international peace and security efforts through multilateral disarmament peace and security efforts through multilateral disarmament [2] [2]

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________[1] Korea : The Next Iraq by Mary-Anne Ashford, John Price, Sung Suh

http://www.flora.org/mai/forum/47044

[2] Ernie Regehr. Canada and Ballistic Missile Defence. Ploughshares Monitor [2] Ernie Regehr. Canada and Ballistic Missile Defence. Ploughshares Monitor Summer 2003Summer 2003

Why Say NO to BMD ?Why Say NO to BMD ?e. Corporate Influence e. Corporate Influence

Pressure from the US ambassador challenging Canada's Pressure from the US ambassador challenging Canada's position on the Iraq War and hinting of possible blowback position on the Iraq War and hinting of possible blowback touched off debate which led to intended pressure on the touched off debate which led to intended pressure on the government from the Alliance, business lobby and right wing government from the Alliance, business lobby and right wing media. media.

“ “ Within weeks the price of atonement for Canadian apostasy Within weeks the price of atonement for Canadian apostasy in the Iraq War became known – the Canadian cabinet began in the Iraq War became known – the Canadian cabinet began shifting its position on the very controversial US program of shifting its position on the very controversial US program of missile defence system (MDS)”missile defence system (MDS)”

Various cabinet ministers offered explanations from terrorism Various cabinet ministers offered explanations from terrorism threats to continental security and Paul Martin and John Manley threats to continental security and Paul Martin and John Manley espoused closer ties with the US in what has turned into an act espoused closer ties with the US in what has turned into an act of capitulation on the alter of preserving good continental of capitulation on the alter of preserving good continental relations. relations.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________Lloyd Axworthy . 2003. Lloyd Axworthy . 2003. Navigating a New World :Canada’s Global Navigating a New World :Canada’s Global Future.Future.

Toronto : Alfred a Knopf Toronto : Alfred a Knopf

• Lloyd Axworthy . 2003. Lloyd Axworthy . 2003. Navigating a New World :Canada’s Global Navigating a New World :Canada’s Global Future.Future. Toronto : Alfred a Knopf Toronto : Alfred a Knopf


.. .. the Canadian Council of Chief Executivesthe Canadian Council of Chief Executives have have organized an organized an action group ofaction group of.... corporate CEOs to promote what they call corporate CEOs to promote what they call "North American Security "North American Security & & Prosperity" Prosperity" (NASPI)(NASPI)which includes which includes Canada joining missile defence. Canada joining missile defence. [1][1]… Canada's corporate community has been urging Prime Minister Martin to cast off these old "soft power" notions from Canada's past. They argue that our future is tied to the United States, and that if we please the Bush administration we can enjoy the benefits of being the closest neighbour and best friend of the world's only superpower. Pump billions more into the military and join national missile defence, they say, if that's what it takes to win favour in DC. Prime Minister Martin, alarmingly, has taken much of the CEOs' advice to heart. [2] ________________________________________________________________-

[1] CBC Commentary –Steven Staples, Polaris InstituteCBC Commentary –Steven Staples, Polaris Institute http://www.cbc.ca/insite/COMMENTARY/2003/5/30.htmlhttp://www.cbc.ca/insite/COMMENTARY/2003/5/30.html[2] Steven Staples Ottawa the Hill Times, Jan 12, 2004 •http://www.polarisinstitute.org/polaris_project/corp_security_state/http://www.polarisinstitute.org/polaris_project/corp_security_state/publications_articles/january_8_2004.html publications_articles/january_8_2004.html


• The Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE) formerly the The Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE) formerly the BCNI (Business Council on National Issues) has a plan for the BCNI (Business Council on National Issues) has a plan for the New Prime Minister called ‘deep integration’ that will see New Prime Minister called ‘deep integration’ that will see Canada further assimilated into the US. Corporate Canada Canada further assimilated into the US. Corporate Canada fears being shut out as economic woes beleaguer the new fears being shut out as economic woes beleaguer the new American Empire and 15 years of free trade have failed to American Empire and 15 years of free trade have failed to produce the economic results promised. produce the economic results promised. Cooperating with the Cooperating with the US on foreign policy, defence policy, immigration and perimeter US on foreign policy, defence policy, immigration and perimeter security, continental energy, and Star Wars II – this and much security, continental energy, and Star Wars II – this and much more is Bay Street’s agenda for the next ten years. more is Bay Street’s agenda for the next ten years. -- -- Murray Dobbin, 2003 Murray Dobbin, 2003

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________Murray Dobbin. 2003. Paul Martin CEO for Canada ? Toronto: James Lorimer & Murray Dobbin. 2003. Paul Martin CEO for Canada ? Toronto: James Lorimer & Co. Ltd. Co. Ltd.


Called the “Big Idea” by the … C.D. Howe Institute, the aim ofthe “deep integration” agenda is to “harmonize” various critical Canadianpolicies with those of the United States. ..Canadian corporate interests are lobbying for ideas such as: • Ballistic Missile Defence • Customs Union • North American Security Perimeter • North American Identity card • Harmonization of regulations and legislation • Continental energy and water strategies _________________________________________________Colony or Country - The Future of Canada-U.S. Relations. Public Forums with Maude Barlow. http://www.canadians.org/browse_categories.htm?COC_token=23@@6789632f146363c75a4e07275a115b2d&step=2&catid=319&iscat=1

Why Say NO to BMD ?Why Say NO to BMD ?e. Corporate Deep Integration Agenda Violates e. Corporate Deep Integration Agenda Violates

Canadian Values “Canadian Values “ While Corporate Canada and their government supporters

downplay differences in Canadian and American values surveys such as those cited above and the following show otherwise.

Michael Adams, President of Environs Canada challenges the "myth of inevitability“ that has led us to believe our Canadian way of life is doomed to extinction. Drawing upon a decade of never-before released data from both sides of the border, he reveals that Canada and the United States are not coming together, but are diverging in significant ways. From the vehicles we buy to the deference we pay to authority, Canadians prove to be firmly separate in their attitudes and opinions.

____________________________________________________________________

[1] Michael Adams. 2004. Fire and Ice. :The United States, Canada and the Myth of Converging Values

Toronto: Penguin Canada

Why Say NO to BMD ?Why Say NO to BMD ?f.. There is no imperative to be ‘at the tablef.. There is no imperative to be ‘at the table’’

““The conventional wisdom is that Canada is facing an The conventional wisdom is that Canada is facing an immediate decision and must be at the BMD table with the immediate decision and must be at the BMD table with the Americans to have any input into its future implications. In Americans to have any input into its future implications. In fact there is no such pressure. The BMD system is still fact there is no such pressure. The BMD system is still experimental and the American are not ready for a Canadian experimental and the American are not ready for a Canadian decision. As well, there are number of tables at which Canada decision. As well, there are number of tables at which Canada is already seated, such as NORAD , where Canada can is already seated, such as NORAD , where Canada can engage in direct discussion with the US about its concerns.”engage in direct discussion with the US about its concerns.”

-- Lloyd Axworthy -- Lloyd Axworthy

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Project Ploughshares media release on their authoritative 58 page report Project Ploughshares media release on their authoritative 58 page report


Why Say NO to BMD ?Why Say NO to BMD ?f. . There is no imperative to be ‘at the tablef. . There is no imperative to be ‘at the table’’

Ernie Regehr in his Briefing Paper of March 4Ernie Regehr in his Briefing Paper of March 4thth- - BMD, BMD, NORAD, and Canada-US Security Relations NORAD, and Canada-US Security Relations notes:notes:

“ “It is not easy for Canadians to believe but very little of the It is not easy for Canadians to believe but very little of the pressure on Canada to join the US BMD is coming from pressure on Canada to join the US BMD is coming from Washington.”Washington.”

He deconstructs the issue and concludes that of the three He deconstructs the issue and concludes that of the three options available for Canada vis a vis BMD the best one in options available for Canada vis a vis BMD the best one in non-involvement in BMD- which would take Canada out of non-involvement in BMD- which would take Canada out of BMD operations, strategic and theatre BMD and would return BMD operations, strategic and theatre BMD and would return Canada to strictly air defence role within NORAD and thereby Canada to strictly air defence role within NORAD and thereby stay out of ITWAA –the Integrated Tactical Warning and stay out of ITWAA –the Integrated Tactical Warning and Attack Assessment. Attack Assessment.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Ernie Regehr Briefing Paper of March 4Ernie Regehr Briefing Paper of March 4thth- - BMD, NORAD, and Canada-US Security BMD, NORAD, and Canada-US Security

RelationsRelations Project Ploughshares.Project Ploughshares.

http://www.ploughshares.ca/CONTENT/BRIEFINGS/brf044.pdf

Why Say NO to BMD ?Why Say NO to BMD ? 4 . Environmentally dangerous Environmentally dangerous [ [ AccidentsAccidents ] ]

• We have created hugely complex systems that are vulnerable to We have created hugely complex systems that are vulnerable to electronic failure, computer malfunction, enemy ‘hacking’ and electronic failure, computer malfunction, enemy ‘hacking’ and electronic interference. Modern weapons are so powerful any electronic interference. Modern weapons are so powerful any accident could result in huge loss of life and large-scale accident could result in huge loss of life and large-scale destruction of the environment… Weapons are being tested destruction of the environment… Weapons are being tested without an accurate view of what they might be doing to us and without an accurate view of what they might be doing to us and to the natural world. [1] to the natural world. [1]

• Outer space is already militarized with missile systems Outer space is already militarized with missile systems dependent on guidance from satellites. The US missile defence dependent on guidance from satellites. The US missile defence program now underway will step up this process. If introduced program now underway will step up this process. If introduced into space , the danger of contamination through conventional or into space , the danger of contamination through conventional or nuclear explosives will be significant. [2]nuclear explosives will be significant. [2] ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[1][1] Rosalie Bertell. 2001. Planet Earth : The Latest Weapon of War. Montreal, New Rosalie Bertell. 2001. Planet Earth : The Latest Weapon of War. Montreal, New York, London: Black Rose BooksYork, London: Black Rose Books[2] Douglas Roche . 2003. The Human right to Peace. Toronto : Novalis[2] Douglas Roche . 2003. The Human right to Peace. Toronto : Novalis

[[

Why Say NO to BMD ?Why Say NO to BMD ?

Environmentally dangerous – Space DebrisEnvironmentally dangerous – Space Debris • It is estimated that there are 10,000 to 50,000 objects larger It is estimated that there are 10,000 to 50,000 objects larger than 4 cm currently orbiting Earth with the total number much than 4 cm currently orbiting Earth with the total number much larger. They travel at a very high velocity and can do larger. They travel at a very high velocity and can do considerable damage or even destroy a large satellite. [1]considerable damage or even destroy a large satellite. [1]• The prospect of fighting in space would have serious The prospect of fighting in space would have serious consequences. Even testing mid-course interceptions of ballistic consequences. Even testing mid-course interceptions of ballistic missiles within the low-earth orbit range would generate space missiles within the low-earth orbit range would generate space debris that would continue to orbit for long periods, endangering debris that would continue to orbit for long periods, endangering vital low-earth communications and other satellites, and vital low-earth communications and other satellites, and destruction of satellites in higher orbit would result in destruction of satellites in higher orbit would result in permanently orbiting debris. Space traffic monitors already permanently orbiting debris. Space traffic monitors already track thousands of pieces of space junk. [2] track thousands of pieces of space junk. [2]

______________________________________________________________________________________________________[[1] Rosalie Bertell. 2001. Planet Earth : The Latest Weapon of War. Montreal, New 1] Rosalie Bertell. 2001. Planet Earth : The Latest Weapon of War. Montreal, New York, London: Black Rose BooksYork, London: Black Rose Books

[2] Ernie Regehr. Canada and Ballistic Missile Defence. Ploughshares Monitor [2] Ernie Regehr. Canada and Ballistic Missile Defence. Ploughshares Monitor Summer 2003Summer 2003

4. Alternatives ? Outline4. Alternatives ? Outline

1. Address injustices and Poverty to attain security2. Retain our sovereign voice and unique identity 3. Re-think and Strengthen the UN

4.4. Spend on Peace keeping not military integration USSpend on Peace keeping not military integration US5. Reject Deep Integration – Renew Vision of Just Society 6. Adopt Political –economic alternatives: Globalization is in

decline7. Stress Peace, Diplomacy, Disarmament and Human

Security8. Adopt a Culture of Peace - not a Culture of War !!

Alternatives ?Alternatives ? 1. Address injustices and poverty to attain

security

“ “ We are now facing a turning point. Terrorists anywhere We are now facing a turning point. Terrorists anywhere can covertly destroy the prized assets of the powerful and can covertly destroy the prized assets of the powerful and the powerful can invoke a new doctrine of pre-emptive the powerful can invoke a new doctrine of pre-emptive strike to protect themselves. We need to face up to a hard strike to protect themselves. We need to face up to a hard reality: neither military strength, nuclear weapons, nor reality: neither military strength, nuclear weapons, nor missile defence will defend us against persons who lash missile defence will defend us against persons who lash out at humanity because of their consuming hatred .. of out at humanity because of their consuming hatred .. of the poverty, oppression, power and greed of modern the poverty, oppression, power and greed of modern society. They need to understand that their best long society. They need to understand that their best long range defence lies in addressing the great injustices that range defence lies in addressing the great injustices that are today increasing the divisions between rich and poor, are today increasing the divisions between rich and poor, powerful and the vulnerable and the triumphant and the powerful and the vulnerable and the triumphant and the despairing.” despairing.”

- Senator Douglas Roche, The Human Right to Peace- Senator Douglas Roche, The Human Right to Peace

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Douglas Roche . 2003. The Human right to Peace. Toronto : Novalis Douglas Roche . 2003. The Human right to Peace. Toronto : Novalis

Alternatives ?Alternatives ? 2. Retain our sovereign voice and

unique identity

““First of all, we have to maintain our policy space, and First of all, we have to maintain our policy space, and gradually expand it so that we can maintain and enhance gradually expand it so that we can maintain and enhance a distinct kind of society in Canada, different from the US , a distinct kind of society in Canada, different from the US , based on a social model.” - Ricardo Grinspun, based on a social model.” - Ricardo Grinspun, Economist, University of York Economist, University of York

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________Murray Dobbin. 2003. Paul Martin: CEO for Canada? Toronto: James Lorimer & Murray Dobbin. 2003. Paul Martin: CEO for Canada? Toronto: James Lorimer &

Co. p.176Co. p.176

Alternatives ?Alternatives ? 2. Retain our sovereign voice and

unique identity

It is important to get these considerations out into the It is important to get these considerations out into the open. If we don’t have a democratic debate about this, the open. If we don’t have a democratic debate about this, the insiders will win he day, using their access and money to insiders will win he day, using their access and money to influence a Canadian decision towards military integration influence a Canadian decision towards military integration with the US. If we don’t exercise a distinctive voice, ..we with the US. If we don’t exercise a distinctive voice, ..we will wake up to find our freedom of choice given away and will wake up to find our freedom of choice given away and our credibility in the eyes of the world as a disarmament our credibility in the eyes of the world as a disarmament friendly people gone.” –- Lloyd Axworthyfriendly people gone.” –- Lloyd Axworthy

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Lloyd Axworthy . 2003. Lloyd Axworthy . 2003. Navigating a New World :Canada’s Global Future.Navigating a New World :Canada’s Global Future.

Toronto : Alfred a KnopfToronto : Alfred a Knopf

Alternatives ?Alternatives ? 3. Re-think and Strengthen the UN “ “Over the last 50 years, the various agencies of the Over the last 50 years, the various agencies of the

United Nations have evolved rather miraculously into United Nations have evolved rather miraculously into more or less effective agents for global change. This is more or less effective agents for global change. This is remarkable accomplishment made difficult by the remarkable accomplishment made difficult by the multinational/multilingual nature of its staff and the multinational/multilingual nature of its staff and the escalating nature of its mandate. The world’s expectations escalating nature of its mandate. The world’s expectations of it are awesome, and it has endured great financial of it are awesome, and it has endured great financial insecurity. At this crucial time in history, it is important to insecurity. At this crucial time in history, it is important to re-think the structure of the UN , its agencies and their re-think the structure of the UN , its agencies and their mandates so as to encourage further growth n the mandates so as to encourage further growth n the direction of sustainability and genuine security. It is also direction of sustainability and genuine security. It is also important that human security be redefined as the new important that human security be redefined as the new vision toward which we strive.”vision toward which we strive.” --- --- Rosalie Bertell. Planet Rosalie Bertell. Planet Earth The Latest Weapon of War p. 219-220Earth The Latest Weapon of War p. 219-220

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________Rosalie Bertell. 2001. Rosalie Bertell. 2001. Planet Earth : The Latest Weapon of WarPlanet Earth : The Latest Weapon of War. Montreal, New . Montreal, New

York, London: Black Rose BooksYork, London: Black Rose Books

Alternatives ?Alternatives ? 3. Re-think and Strengthen the UN “Respect for, and strict adherence to, the terms of

international agreements are the basis of a civilized society. Without this, anarchy and terrorism would reign, the very perils President Bush is allegedly committed to eradicate. While he intends to tackle this issue by military means, we must strive to achieve it by peaceful means. While the Bush Administration plans to act unilaterally, we have to ensure that world security is entrusted to the United Nations, the institution set up for this purpose. And we must link our respect for the law with strong moral principles. We want to see a world in which relations between people and between nations are based on compassion, not greed; on generosity, not jealousy; on persuasion, not force; on equity, not oppression.”

-- Sir Joseph Rotblat, Nobel Peace Prize 1995, signatory to the Russell-Einstein Manifesto in 1955, Founder Pugwash

__________________________________________________________________________

Sir Joseph Rotblat The Nuclear Issue: Pugwash & the Bush Policies [Halifax July 18, Pugwash

Conf] http://www.flora.org/mai/forum/43948

Alternatives ?Alternatives ? 3. Re-think and Strengthen the UN

As Canadians, some say the UN is part of our national DNA . Canadians have helped to shape the UN as we know it: .............

Now is no time to give up on the UN. The UN remains the world's best hope for peace.

Providing a forum for discussion and problem-solving, the last few years has seen the UN adopt specific commitments to ensure lessons from the last century are put to task. Your voices and values are critical if the UN is to remain relevant and overcome its weaknesses in the next century. - Hon David Kilgour, MP Edmonton

_______________________________________________________UN Values, Canadian Values - Remarks by Hon. David Kilgour, MP for Edmonton

http://www.david-kilgour.com/mp/model%20un%20u%20of%20a.htm

Alternatives ?Alternatives ?

4.. Spend on Peace keeping not military Spend on Peace keeping not military integration with US integration with US

““At various times in our history we have attempted to At various times in our history we have attempted to counter that inevitable rush to destruction, perceiving our counter that inevitable rush to destruction, perceiving our best interests to lie within a system where the tools of war best interests to lie within a system where the tools of war were kept in a chest , to be used only when threatened or were kept in a chest , to be used only when threatened or in recent years to aid those who need protection. This in recent years to aid those who need protection. This requires military expenditures .. .to keep the peace, not to requires military expenditures .. .to keep the peace, not to aid war. -- Lloyd Axworthyaid war. -- Lloyd Axworthy

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Lloyd Axworthy . 2003. Lloyd Axworthy . 2003. Navigating a New World :Canada’s Global Future.Navigating a New World :Canada’s Global Future.

Toronto : Alfred a KnopfToronto : Alfred a Knopf

Alternatives ?Alternatives ? 4. 4. Spend on Peace keeping not military Spend on Peace keeping not military

integration with US integration with US • Canada’s defense policy must be updated so that the Canada’s defense policy must be updated so that the

armed forces are given the support they need to play a armed forces are given the support they need to play a more specialized role in peacekeeping and conflict more specialized role in peacekeeping and conflict resolution. resolution.

• Canada's military spending should be redirected from Canada's military spending should be redirected from aggressive military weapons such as BMD and used to aggressive military weapons such as BMD and used to support the men and women in the armed forces and to support the men and women in the armed forces and to rebuild Canada’s leadership in United Nations rebuild Canada’s leadership in United Nations peacekeeping.peacekeeping.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________The Canada we Want---A Citizen’s Alternative to Deep Integration. Council of

Canadians BackgroundDocument for Public Forum Debates - COLONY OR COUNTRY? March 2004.

http://www.candians.org

Alternatives ?Alternatives ? 5. Reject Deep Integration – Renew Vision of Just

Society Global social justice is not on the ‘deep integration’

agenda. Deep integration is an agenda for more power to corporations, esp. large defence and energy corporations needed to enforce a military definition of society. Adopting ‘deep integration’ would mean abandoning what we have left of the vision of a just society. Reject Deep Integration:

1. Demand full public participation in PM ‘s review of Canada-US policy

2. Make deep integration the main issue of the federal election.

3. Exercise your vote in the federal election – overcome voter apathy

_______________________________________________________The Canada we Want---A Citizen’s Alternative to Deep Integration. Council of

Canadians BackgroundDocument for Public Forum Debates - COLONY OR COUNTRY?

http://www.canadians.org/browse_categories.htm?COC_token=23@@43a0b424383da9d066a798893a

285f5f&step=2&catid=319&iscat=1

Maude Barlow- Colony or Country

Alternatives ?Alternatives ? 6. Adopt Political –economic alternatives:

• Grand economic theories rarely last more than a few decades". except in case of communism which survived 75 years because of military imposition. Globalization which is one of these grand theories backed up by a particularly ferocious ideology [globalism] akin to religiosity - is collapsing if not already dead according to Saul.

• Therefore we must seek to fill the vacuum with political economic alternatives !

________________________________________________________John Ralston Saul. The End of globalism. Australian Financial Review. http://afr.com/articles/2004/02/19/1077072774981.html


• Improve the regulatory system

• Strengthen Political Democracy

• Create a Robust Public Sphere

• Challenge international Neoliberalism ______________________________________________Joel Bakan. 2004. The Corporation. The Pathological Pursuit of Profits

and Power. New York: Free Press

Alternatives ?Alternatives ?

7. Stress Peace, Diplomacy, Disarmament and Human Security

Canada’s diplomacy should stress peace, disarmament and human security, which are inextricably linked to the people’s social, political and economic needs. Canada could play a pivotal role in searching for alternative military models that would help achieve global stability.

__________________________________________________The Canada we Want---A Citizen’s Alternative to Deep Integration. Council of

Canadians BackgroundDocument for Public Forum Debates - COLONY OR COUNTRY?

http://www.canadians.org

Alternatives ? Alternatives ? Adopt a Culture ofAdopt a Culture of Peace! Peace! Culture of War• Images of the enemy

• Armaments & armies

• Authoritarian governance

• Secrecy & propaganda

• Violence-structural/physical

• Male domination

• Education for war

• Exploitation of the weak & environment

Culture of Peace • Tolerance/solidarity

• Disarmament

• Democratic participation

• Free flow-info/knowledge

• Respect for all Human Rights

• Equality- men & women

• Education for peace culture

• Sustainable economic & social development

Douglas Roche . 2003. The Human right to Peace. Toronto : Novalis p. 108Douglas Roche . 2003. The Human right to Peace. Toronto : Novalis p. 108

5. Why get involved !5. Why get involved !

"It is the role of activists inside and outside the state to "It is the role of activists inside and outside the state to remind governments of the commitments they have taken remind governments of the commitments they have taken on in ratifying conventions" --- UNESCO Culture of Peace on in ratifying conventions" --- UNESCO Culture of Peace KitKit

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ "Building a Culture of Peace Kit from the Canadian Commission for "Building a Culture of Peace Kit from the Canadian Commission for

UNESCO prepared for the Year 2000 - " International Year of a UNESCO prepared for the Year 2000 - " International Year of a Culture of Peace. " Culture of Peace. "

http://www.unesco.ca/english/CultureofPeace/e-kit.htm http://www.unesco.ca/english/CultureofPeace/e-kit.htm

Why get involved !Why get involved ! We can make a difference.We can make a difference. ! ! Another world Another world

is possible”is possible”

- a world based on a culture of peace, ecological - a world based on a culture of peace, ecological sustainability, economic justice, participatory democracy, sustainability, economic justice, participatory democracy, and respect for human rights, women’s rights and global and respect for human rights, women’s rights and global and human security is possible.and human security is possible.

February 15 marked the first anniversary of the unprecedented day when more than 10 million people in over 600 cities world-wide demonstrated against the plans for the US - led invasion of Iraq in the largest protest for peace in world history. And the movement has not gone has not gone away. away.

Once one has felt the compelling Once one has felt the compelling energies of an energies of an interconnected world’ and the passion and power of the interconnected world’ and the passion and power of the peoplepeople with hearts and strategies joined across this planet with hearts and strategies joined across this planet there is no turning back. there is no turning back.

We are reaching a critical mass informed by a global We are reaching a critical mass informed by a global consciousness and consensus against a consciousness and consensus against a “Culture of War”“Culture of War” while moving slowly but inexorably towards a ‘while moving slowly but inexorably towards a ‘Culture of Culture of Peace!” Peace!”

-- Janet M Eaton -- Janet M Eaton

How to get involved !How to get involved ! 1.1. Educate yourself on the policy context, issues and debateEducate yourself on the policy context, issues and debate

2.2. Join an NGO / visit NGO websites [see next slide for list]Join an NGO / visit NGO websites [see next slide for list]

3.3. Listen to, watch and write to Radio and TV news programs Listen to, watch and write to Radio and TV news programs and CPAC for House of Commons debates etc.and CPAC for House of Commons debates etc.

4.4. Sign petitions – online or in hand Sign petitions – online or in hand

5.5. Write your MP and PM cc NGOs, opposition leadersWrite your MP and PM cc NGOs, opposition leaders

6.6. Write letters to the Editor of all the newspapersWrite letters to the Editor of all the newspapers

7.7. Organize a meeting in your community about BMD & ‘Deep Organize a meeting in your community about BMD & ‘Deep Integration” using educational resources to create Integration” using educational resources to create awareness and stimulate discussion. (Use this power point, awareness and stimulate discussion. (Use this power point, films such as Star Wars Dreams and background paper on films such as Star Wars Dreams and background paper on ‘deep integration’)‘deep integration’)

8.8. Take part in Peace vigils and anti-war marches- particularly Take part in Peace vigils and anti-war marches- particularly

March 20March 20thth Global Day of Action !! Global Day of Action !!

How to get involved !How to get involved ! NGO’s to join or seek information from NGO’s to join or seek information from Canadian Peace Alliance Canadian Peace Alliance http://www.acp-cpa.ca/

Halifax Peace Coalition – Activism & Events - see BMD Reader Halifax Peace Coalition – Activism & Events - see BMD Reader http://hfxpeace.chebucto.org/bmdreader.html

Ceasfire.ca – online letter to PM Ceasfire.ca – online letter to PM http://www.ceasefire.ca/KAIROS Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiative. Campaign for a Just Peace KAIROS Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiative. Campaign for a Just Peace http://www.kairoscanada.org/e/action/campaign.asp

Project Ploughshares –Canada and BMD –Comprehensive online Project Ploughshares –Canada and BMD –Comprehensive online resourcesresources

http://www.ploughshares.ca/CONTENT/ABOLISH%20NUCS/BMD%20Page/BM.update.htm

Polaris Institute – Corporate Security State Polaris Institute – Corporate Security State http://www.polarisinstitute.org/polaris_project/corp_security_state/corp

_security_state_index.htm

Canadian Voice of Women for Peace Nova Scotia – BMD Brochure Canadian Voice of Women for Peace Nova Scotia – BMD Brochure

http:www.nsvow.chebucto.orghttp:www.nsvow.chebucto.orgPeople Against Weapons in Space (PAWS)http://www.nowis.org/action

Building a Culture of Peace Kit from the Canadian Commission for UNESCO prepared for the Building a Culture of Peace Kit from the Canadian Commission for UNESCO prepared for the Year 2000 - " InternationalYear 2000 - " International

Year of a Culture of Peace. " Year of a Culture of Peace. " http://www.unesco.ca/english/CultureofPeace/e-kit.htm Council of Canadians – The Kind of Canada we Want - Alternatives to Deep Council of Canadians – The Kind of Canada we Want - Alternatives to Deep

IntegrationIntegrationhttp://www.canadians.org

How to get involved !How to get involved ! Writing letters –Addresses * Right Hon. Paul Martin Prime Minister of Canada 1-613-992-4211, Fax (613) 941-6900 [email protected]* Hon. Bill Graham, Minister of Foreign Affairs 1-613-992-5234, Fax (613) 996-9607 [email protected]* Dept. Foreign Affairs and International Trade 1-800-267-8376* Hon David Pratt, Minister of Defence [email protected] 1- (613) 992-2772 , Fax (613) 992-1209 * Your MP http://canada.gc.ca/directories/direct_e.html_____________________________________House of CommonsOttawa, ON, K1A 0A6No postage required - and local Peace NGO _______________________________________Letters to the Media:Globe and Mail - [email protected] - [email protected] / [email protected] / [email protected]

CTV News [email protected]

How to get involved !How to get involved ! Writing letters –Addresses * Right Hon. Paul Martin Prime Minister of Canada 1-613-992-4211, Fax (613) 941-6900 [email protected]* Hon. Bill Graham, Minister of Foreign Affairs 1-613-992-5234, Fax (613) 996-9607 [email protected]* Dept. Foreign Affairs and International Trade 1-800-267-8376* Hon David Pratt, Minister of Defence [email protected] 1- (613) 992-2772 , Fax (613) 992-1209 * Your MP http://canada.gc.ca/directories/direct_e.html_____________________________________House of CommonsOttawa, ON, K1A 0A6No postage required - and local Peace NGO _______________________________________Letters to the Media:Globe and Mail - [email protected] - [email protected] / [email protected] / [email protected]

CTV News [email protected]

Researched and Prepared by

Janet M Eaton, PhD,

Researcher, Academic and Global Democracy & Peace Movement activist

133 Main St., Wolfville, N.S.

Ph 902) 542- 1631

k.sympatico.ca

http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/jmeaton/war/jeaton.htm

The EndThe End

Alternatives ?Alternatives ?5. Find ways to Control the Corporation • The challenge for now is to find ways to control

the corporation – to subject it to democratic constraints and protect citizens from its dangerous tendencies –

• Improving the legitimacy, effectiveness and accountability of governmental regulation is currently the best, or at least most realistic , strategy for doing this.

_______________________________________________Joel Bakan. 2004. The Corporation. The Pathological Pursuit of Profits

and Power. New York: Free Press

Alternatives ?Alternatives ? 9. We can afford the Canada we Want – and must

demand it

• There is simply no debate about our capacity to create the kind of country we want. Canada’s GDP per capita has been steadily increasing for 30 years.

• If we don’t have free university tuition, universal child

care, pharmacare, and vibrant cities, it is because the money has been given away , bit by bit, to a small minority of Canadians over the past twenty years. The last installment of which was the recent 100 billion tax cut – a staggering amount of money which could have changed the face of the country for the better. It isn’t a question of having enough money – it’s a question of who decides how we divide it up between Bay Street and Main Street.

_______________________________________________________Murray Dobbin. 2003. Paul Martin: CEO for Canada? Toronto: James Lorimer & Murray Dobbin. 2003. Paul Martin: CEO for Canada? Toronto: James Lorimer &

Co. p.178Co. p.178

Why Say NO to BMD ?Why Say NO to BMD ? Economically wastefulEconomically wasteful

• FISCAL 2004 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BUDGET RELEASEFISCAL 2004 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BUDGET RELEASE

Missile Defense.Missile Defense. $7.7 billion for the Missile Defense Agency $7.7 billion for the Missile Defense Agency

• HIGHLIGHTS OF THE FY'05 BUDGET REQUEST --- $9.1 billion for the Missile Defense Agency (MDA), up from the current $7.6 billion.

_________________________________________________FISCAL 2004 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BUDGET RELEASEFISCAL 2004 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BUDGET RELEASEhttp://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb2003/b02032003_bt044-03.html

Highlights of the FY'05 Budget Request - The Council for a Livable World Website http://64.177.207.201/pages/8_490.html

Why Say NO to BMD ?Why Say NO to BMD ?““Corporate Deep Integration Agenda Violates Corporate Deep Integration Agenda Violates

Canadian Values “Canadian Values “

Ted Schmidt, Editor of the Catholic New Times recently alluded to Paul Martin’s agenda asking if Paul Martin was out of step with Canadian values? – His conclusion – Martin seems to have repudiated the Liberal Red Book of 1993, and moved instead to embrace the Washington Consensus, a program marked by privatization, deregulation, smaller government and unfettered free trade.

Canadians wanting an activist government which favours the common good must pay attention to our prime minister's deeds, rather than his language. Progressive Canadians, seeking a just society and an independent place for Canada in the world, must catch and keep Paul Martin's ear. [1]

_______________________________________________________Paul Martin: out-of-step with Canadian values Watch what we do, not what we say.

by Ted Schmidt March 2, 2004 http://www.rabble.ca/everyones_a_critic.shtml?x=30649

Why Say NO to BMD ?Why Say NO to BMD ?Questions around ‘offensive’ intent of BMD Questions around ‘offensive’ intent of BMD

The Canadian Government claims that BMD is a defensive system

Sir Joseph Rotblat, speaking about National Missile Defence and a range of other policies, said these policies seem to have two aims: one, a defensive strategy to make the USA invulnerable to an attack from outside; the second, an offensive strategy, to threaten an unfriendly regime with military action, including the use of nuclear weapons, if it attempts to acquire WMDs for itself.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[1] [1] Sir Joseph Rotblat The Nuclear Issue: Pugwash & the Bush Policies [Halifax July 18, Pugwash Conf] http://www.flora.org/mai/forum/43948

Why Say NO to BMD ?Why Say NO to BMD ?Questions about threat of BMD Questions about threat of BMD

Professor Stephen Clarkson, University of Toronto Political Professor Stephen Clarkson, University of Toronto Political Economist speaking in Ottawa on February 10Economist speaking in Ottawa on February 10thth 2004 said of 2004 said of the perceived threat of Ballistic Missiles: the perceived threat of Ballistic Missiles:

“ “I don’t think the Cold War Paradigm is entirely appropriate I don’t think the Cold War Paradigm is entirely appropriate now because then there was a clear consensus that there now because then there was a clear consensus that there was a military threat from the Soviet Union . Now the threat was a military threat from the Soviet Union . Now the threat has been constructed by the Pentagon to be military when its has been constructed by the Pentagon to be military when its actually a terrorist threat and to claim there are rogue states actually a terrorist threat and to claim there are rogue states threatening us with intercontinental ballistic missiles is really threatening us with intercontinental ballistic missiles is really to exaggerate enormously, and American intelligence is to exaggerate enormously, and American intelligence is extremely unreliable so I think we need to be very careful of extremely unreliable so I think we need to be very careful of accepting the American’s definition of what the strategic accepting the American’s definition of what the strategic issues are.”issues are.”

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Stephen Clarkson. Panel presentation. Conference on Managing American Canadian Stephen Clarkson. Panel presentation. Conference on Managing American Canadian Relations, Carleton University, Ottawa . February 10, 2004 Relations, Carleton University, Ottawa . February 10, 2004


Recognize the end of Economic Globalization is nigh and globalism is collapsing

• There are many signs that Economic Globalization and its so-called “iron fist” militarism are not working – the collapse of trade talks in Seattle, and later in Cancun, global disease, global poverty, massive violations of human rights, failures of democracy, increase in civil wars, growth in refugees from war, big dams, global economic polices; environmental catastrophes, global warming; and the increase of terrorism in response to imperialistic foreign and trade policies. Other signs are the rise of nation-state populism which seeks to address the public good as seen in Brazil and other South American countries.

Why Say NO to BMD ?Why Say NO to BMD ? d. Jeopardizes Canada’s Sovereignty Canada’s Sovereignty

“ “Above all the strength of Canada has always been based Above all the strength of Canada has always been based on our capacity to build bridges with the world and on our capacity to build bridges with the world and building a wall around North America by joining this plan building a wall around North America by joining this plan will reduce our opportunity to build bridges with the world. will reduce our opportunity to build bridges with the world. …. There are no shields strong enough to fight hate – what …. There are no shields strong enough to fight hate – what fights hate is the capacity to walk in the shoes others, the fights hate is the capacity to walk in the shoes others, the capacity of knowing oneself and seeing oneself reflected capacity of knowing oneself and seeing oneself reflected in the others diversity which is exactly contrary to the War in the others diversity which is exactly contrary to the War on hate. …... on hate. …... Canada must have a sovereign voice Canada must have a sovereign voice against this war-like policy put forward by Mr Bushagainst this war-like policy put forward by Mr Bush.” .”

-- Sheila Copps, MP. Parliamentary Debate -- Sheila Copps, MP. Parliamentary Debate on BMDon BMD

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________Sheila Copps. Parliamentary Debate on Ballistic Missile Defence Feb 18Sheila Copps. Parliamentary Debate on Ballistic Missile Defence Feb 18thth, 2004 , 2004

Why Say NO to BMD ?Why Say NO to BMD ? Violates Canadian Values & International LawViolates Canadian Values & International Law

• The missile defence system debate is a potent symbol of The missile defence system debate is a potent symbol of competing world views: one based on traditional Canadian competing world views: one based on traditional Canadian values of peace and multilateralism, the other rooted in a values of peace and multilateralism, the other rooted in a Fortress North America hiding behind an American shield. Fortress North America hiding behind an American shield. [1][1]

• Canada's foreign policies should never be driven by business Canada's foreign policies should never be driven by business

interests; they should instead be an expression of Canadians' interests; they should instead be an expression of Canadians' values by promoting diplomacy and disarmament. values by promoting diplomacy and disarmament. [2] [2]

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________[1] Missile blowback: Poll-reading Grits put brakes on missile pact with U.S. but for how long?

http://www.polarisinstitute.org/polaris_project/corp_security_state/http://www.polarisinstitute.org/polaris_project/corp_security_state/publications_articles/january_22_2004.htmlpublications_articles/january_22_2004.html

[2] [2] CBC Commentary –Steven Staples, Polaris InstituteCBC Commentary –Steven Staples, Polaris Institute http://www.cbc.ca/insite/COMMENTARY/2003/5/30.htmlhttp://www.cbc.ca/insite/COMMENTARY/2003/5/30.html

Alternatives ?Alternatives ? 2. Retain our sovereign voice and unique

identity

“ “Above all the strength of Canada has always been based Above all the strength of Canada has always been based on our capacity to build bridges with the world and on our capacity to build bridges with the world and building a wall around North America by joining this plan building a wall around North America by joining this plan will reduce our opportunity to build bridges with the world. will reduce our opportunity to build bridges with the world. …. There are no shields strong enough to fight hate – what …. There are no shields strong enough to fight hate – what fights hate is the capacity to walk in the shoes others, the fights hate is the capacity to walk in the shoes others, the capacity of knowing oneself and seeing oneself reflected capacity of knowing oneself and seeing oneself reflected in the others diversity which is exactly contrary to the War in the others diversity which is exactly contrary to the War on hate. …... Canada must have a sovereign voice on hate. …... Canada must have a sovereign voice against this war-like policy put forward by Mr Bush.” -- against this war-like policy put forward by Mr Bush.” -- Sheila Copps, MP Sheila Copps, MP

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________Parliamentary Debate on Ballistic Missile Defence Feb 18Parliamentary Debate on Ballistic Missile Defence Feb 18thth, 2004 , 2004

Say NO to Ballistic Missile Defence An Educational Resource An Educational Resource for Concerned Canadians for Concerned Canadians Researched & Prepared.

Documents

missile defence system

missile defence sites

us missile defence deployment

missile shield

armys missile defence

department of defence

true defence

nuclear defensive missile